479 replies to this topic

[MischiefSC]

Khobai, on 07 January 2014 - 10:01 PM, said:

Lasers are perfect. Beam duration was the perfect solution to pinpoint damage. And that same solution needs to be applied to both Autocannons (burst fire) as well as PPCs (splash damage).

I wouldn't say lasers are perfect - close though.

I'm 100% in favor of making ACs DoT. Even just a short DoT effect, like .3 to .5 seconds. PPCs splash damage.... not a bad idea I guess but I'd rather thay work as DoT. Even an uneven Dot - say they do 5 pts spread out over 0.4 seconds then a 5pt hit on wherever they are at the 0.5 tic.

My big concern is that making splash damage work will create huge issues. I'm scared of splash damage. If they try to do that for PPCs and it ends up broken they won't fix it for months, we've seen that before.

[AlmightyAeng]

Joseph Mallan, on 08 January 2014 - 07:58 AM, said:

Competitive (according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary








I don't think Competitive means what you think it does. I am ALWAYS trying to be more successful than all of you.

Also Thesaurus equates Competitive with these words

Balanced does not.

Sigh...sorry Jo...I was being snarky with my movie quotes. My point was that just because someone idea of balance isn't what you want, or the fact that they want balance, doesn't mean they're not competitive.

Crying for balance doesn't mean they don't want to win...I thought your question alluding to that was unfair. That's all.

[Joseph Mallan]

10-12 Turns n TT=2 minutes or less "Real Time" combat. 6 hours o get r done!

[OneEyed Jack]

MischiefSC, on 08 January 2014 - 08:24 AM, said:

My big concern is that making splash damage work will create huge issues. I'm scared of splash damage. If they try to do that for PPCs and it ends up broken they won't fix it for months, we've seen that before.

Supposedly they figured out how to make splash damage have a hard cap, so it's only spreading around the total damage specified, and no more. At least they claim they managed to do it on Arti/Air Strikes. If they did that, then there's no problem.

[Almond Brown]

Can we get the LL GH limit raised to 3 please. That would be great.

[Joseph Mallan]

Ghost Badger, on 08 January 2014 - 08:26 AM, said:

Sigh...sorry Jo...I was being snarky with my movie quotes. My point was that just because someone idea of balance isn't what you want, or the fact that they want balance, doesn't mean they're not competitive.

Crying for balance doesn't mean they don't want to win...I thought your question alluding to that was unfair. That's all.

Don't sweat it. I am the most competitive person that I know of. I have to get the most parts finished in a day (And I do it while sill producing the most posts on the forum... 2 competitive birds), I have a perfect arrival time at work for 20+ years.

My wife got me to start walking with her this summer for our health... after 3 days she was getting mad cause I was pushing for faster walk times (I used to be able to walk a 10 minute mile with a pack on... keep up babe!).

That is competitive.

[AlmightyAeng]

Joseph Mallan, on 08 January 2014 - 08:42 AM, said:

Don't sweat it. I am the most competitive person that I know of. I have to get the most parts finished in a day (And I do it while sill producing the most posts on the forum... 2 competitive birds), I have a perfect arrival time at work for 20+ years.

My wife got me to start walking with her this summer for our health... after 3 days she was getting mad cause I was pushing for faster walk times (I used to be able to walk a 10 minute mile with a pack on... keep up babe!).

That is competitive.

You do realize I never said you weren't competitive, right? Lol. I understand that you want to win the race, and will always want to win the race.

But the guy in the footrace with you, who is annoyed by the guy who gets to use a motorcycle? Just because he wants all the people in the footrace to have to race on foot it doesn't mean he's NOT competitive.

You derided someone asking for balance (granted, his chosen nerf isn't one I agree with) and mocked them for not being competitive. The two aren't mutually exclusive...and you seem to be putting them together.

That was the only point I was trying to make, lol.

[Drunk Canuck]

Huh, if lasers weren't competitive, then why do people still run 6 Medium Laser Jenner's in comp play? Why do people run quad ER Large Laser Stalkers? Because those builds are counters that's why. The 4 ER LL Stalker is a counter and punishes jump snipers, much like the Catapult K2 and Jester can do similar things thanks to their high arm mounted weapons, you don't have to expose as much to fire. Put an alpha strike of 4 ER LL into a jump sniper and make them think twice about popping up again, putting upwards of 32 damage into a jump snipers armor is going to hurt and even if you don't get the full duration of the shot off, it could still do 20 damage easily. If you catch them on the up rise, they would be forced to drop back down rather then take a shot. Whittling down your opponents through attrition is quite amusing.

6 ML Jenner's can slice open an Assault Mech's back in no time and considering how little armor most comp players run in their backs, you can kill them with ease.

Edited by Drunk Canuck, 08 January 2014 - 08:57 AM.

[Sandpit]

Cerberias, on 08 January 2014 - 02:08 AM, said:

The reason you 'outperform' a ballistic build with a laser build is because the damage gets more spread, hitting non-essential areas much more often

Did you really just say I outperform a certain type of mech because my weapon performs worse?

Seriously though, I outperform them because they're on par with any other weapon out there. If they weren't I simply couldn't. It would be impossible to do so. The fact that I can says otherwise. I never said damage was a good indication of anything (it has its place in judging things but not as a sole means which is exactly the point actually)

[Joseph Mallan]

Ghost Badger, on 08 January 2014 - 08:44 AM, said:

You do realize I never said you weren't competitive, right? Lol. I understand that you want to win the race, and will always want to win the race.

But the guy in the footrace with you, who is annoyed by the guy who gets to use a motorcycle? Just because he wants all the people in the footrace to have to race on foot it doesn't mean he's NOT competitive.

You derided someone asking for balance (granted, his chosen nerf isn't one I agree with) and mocked them for not being competitive. The two aren't mutually exclusive...and you seem to be putting them together.

That was the only point I was trying to make, lol.

Yes I did Say that. Guess I need to correct that. I am competitive to the extreme... But in being that competitive, I take losing with grace as I was not the best on the field. But I am always looking to be better. Competitive.

If its a foot race then no Motorcycles(unless Motorcycles were NOT specifically prohibited). But don't whine when a 7'4" competitor joins the race! Walk/jog/run faster!

We are in this combat game, we have access to all the same equipment (even if it means you have to buy it) and abilities(Over time). Now, you bring your best I bring Mine and see who wins! That is the very definition of Competitive!!!!

How can anyone complain cause "Billy" used a different config than me so I don't want him to use it any more... It's not fair! BS! You made bad choices and you failed. Choose better next time. You don't ever read a post from me saying this, that or the other needs Nerfed. I often post how I beat em... or I keep it to myself. Why give you my competitive secrets!

I beat every OP build we have seen in this game on about a 50/50 record. I am not the best player but I give as good as I get. I don't use Artillery or Air strikes, I don't have seismic sensors, TAG, Art4, Beagle Probes or ECM any more. I still go after any and every Mech I see and I win a bit more than I lose. That is competitive baby!

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 08 January 2014 - 09:17 AM.

[Sandpit]

Lykaon, on 08 January 2014 - 05:08 AM, said:

You're good for a laugh now and again really all lrg laser boats? most not getting over 4 sustained DPS ?

Seriously? lasers are by nature sustained damage dependent while the AC/PPC boat is diffinativley NOT it's a burst machine.

Laser Battlemaster Vs AC battle master.

Let's go for a reasonable 5 lrg laser boat.OK first we have ghost heat limiting the group fired lasers to 2 every .5 seconds.Next we have time facing target to consider aim,pull trigger,keep beam on target what would you say that is? 2 seconds?.Then we have Dispersed damage effects because if the target reacts it can spread the damage around.this leads to less effective damage applied.

So sure this build will work if no one is paying any attention to it.God forbid if this next build squares off against the "competative" large laser boat.

Now a real Battlemaster build that actually works. 320std engine 2 AC5s 1 ER-PPC shave a bit of armor of each leg (66 points each I think) fill the rest with heatsinks.

This build has no Ghostheat issues,actually runs cooler overall (60% efficency vs 40% yes 50% more efficent use of heat),has higher DPS (5.26 vs 4.24 that's around 25% higher DPS on top of the 50% more efficent heat use) Frontloads it's damage pinpoint style.Has around a 25% longer effective range than the lrg lasers, And No XL engine extending it's survival time under fire. The 5 large laser Battlemaster is dead if facing off against this alpha shooter.No ifs ands or buts the dummy build 2 AC5s and 1 ER PPC I literaly slap together in my head wins the stats and tactical application game hands down.

But if you like playing hard mode feel free to use the laser boat.

Stats say the ballistic PPC build is better,Tactics play out in favor of the pinpoint front loaded damage allowing for maximizing cover use (no need to stand exposed for 2-3 seconds to hit with 2 lrg lasers every .5 seconds.)

Oh and do a head count see how many AC/PPC battlemasters you see compared to large laser boats it's probably easily 20 to 1.

Just stop the propaganda and do some math.

I'm the joke? lol ok
You can't use these weapons well. I get it. It's ok skippy. But based on the very nature that I can and you can't? I'd say I'm a bit better at being competitive if I can take those "useless" mechs and win.

"You can't be competitive with lasers"
"Tes you can, here's what you can use and do it with"

"You're a joke because you use those mechs that nobody can win with. You're good for lulz because I can't play well enough whit those weapons but you can so you're lying"
"uhm ok, can I direct you to the word irony?"

Joe Derp "Well this weapon sucks, I can't use it well against ballistics"
Me "I can, here's several examples"

Joe Derp "Lies, propaganda, you suck, rant, rage, opinion opinion opinion, berate your skill level because you're obviously wrong"
Me "Uhm ok, good ideas skippy"

Friends don't let friends derp. That is all

[wanderer]

Varent, on 08 January 2014 - 07:10 AM, said:

And? You do understand your a light mech right? Also I have used an ac2 on a few of my light mechs. Ive also used an ac5. I also use a ppc on occasion. My raven currently sports 2 erlarge. I also use SRM regularly.

That said light mechs are not meant to be brawlers and SHOULD NOT have access to larger weapon systems regardless.

You realize that even with pre-3050 tech, one of the most common designs (good old Urbie) packed AC/10's and some variants an AC/20, and the incredibly common Kuritan Panther was a slow PPC-spewing machine that moved about as fast as most heavies? That with 3050-level tech, you get such gems as the Gauss-packing mini-sniper, the Hollander?

A light can dish it out, but they'll sacrifice and certainly won't take it with most brawling setups.

[Cimarb]

We already have several lengthy discussions going on about this. Quit being lazy and making new threads: http://mwomercs.com/...w-with-weapons/ is a good one to join, for instance

[Corvus Antaka]

honestly i think if ballistics where defaulted to a double shot like the uac and uac was a quad shot that alone would be enough to spread damage just that little bit more over the pinpoint meta.

max ranges should be cut too, ballistics outrange lasers to much.

Edited by Colonel Pada Vinson, 08 January 2014 - 09:40 AM.

[Sandpit]

Cimarb, on 08 January 2014 - 09:27 AM, said:

We already have several lengthy discussions going on about this. Quit being lazy and making new threads: http://mwomercs.com/...w-with-weapons/ is a good one to join, for instance

Hope you're ready for the tirade over that one lol

[Noesis]

Varent, on 08 January 2014 - 12:31 AM, said:

Right back at you.


Medium lasers are the most versatile weapon in the game. Period. Explanation point. Also keep in mind it already is starting to become meta for light mechs to use large scale lasers at higher elo. They want the range. If you add that to medium mechs you will be increasing there strength exponentially in ways they do not need nor warrant and you will upset the current fragile balance of the game. I can only guess that you are not playing with players that do this or have not experimented with it yourself. Which also goes back to the argument of in game experience versus numbers. Numbers can be manipulated. In game experiences are a better judge.

Erm, I already said I was more concerned with where ML's are as opposed to LLs. And I recognise the advent of the duel ERLL light (e.g. Raven 3L) used as an harasser Mech, I use it myself on occasion for differing tactics than the anti-light brawler style or striker/flanker options.

It was in fact yourself who original proposed improving the range on LLs even if a bit incorrect with the presumption of use, I just said I wouldn't object to the idea, but didn't recognise it as needed or as demonstrated:

Varent, on 07 January 2014 - 10:03 PM, said:

the large laser er large laser and large pulse laser could all use a range increment increase. Makes sense since they are all used mostly on medium and higher mechs which wont inadvertently effect the balance too much.

ML's are versatile, doesn't mean they are ineffective based on their potential. In fact so much so that I tend to build my Mediums or Lights to use pulse instead.

[Joseph Mallan]

Cimarb, on 08 January 2014 - 09:27 AM, said:

We already have several lengthy discussions going on about this. Quit being lazy and making new threads: http://mwomercs.com/...w-with-weapons/ is a good one to join, for instance

Sandpit, on 08 January 2014 - 09:41 AM, said:

Hope you're ready for the tirade over that one lol

That thread isn't any worse than this one... I know I am posting in it as well!

[Sandpit]

Joseph Mallan, on 08 January 2014 - 09:52 AM, said:

That thread isn't any worse than this one... I know I am posting in it as well!

Just pointing out that someone will eventually go all "forum police touched me" on him for pointing out this is just another duplicate thread causing confusion and clutter on where to find info or post ideas Joe

Oh what the heck....

I'm glad someone finally got the nerve to post about this

[Noesis]

Khobai, on 08 January 2014 - 06:02 AM, said:

And if the game only gave you the choice between LLs and MLs, you might actually be correct.

However, the moment your reasoning completely falls apart, is once you realize the game has ballistic weapons. The reality is MLs complement ballistics far better than LLs, which makes MLs superior in all regards.

Please show me the number of light builds that use a combination of effective Ballistics with an ML combination. Then recognise the limitation in your statement.

The comparison in the study is there to see and also how MLs are also recognisably ineffective when compared with Ballistics at the same time. In terms of their potential.

Then also look at my proposed solution in the study to only effectively improve them with a subtle improvement to heat for longevity. Then you will see that the disparities as identified doesn't mean that I want the sky to fall down. But for lighter Mechs (Lights and mediums, they have more of a dependency on the use of ML due to limited build options).

Yes I recognise that other Mechs can then use ML's also, but at least then that makes it comparatively fair in a relative way, but also helps to improve a diminished weapon option and improve the relevance of the short game over the existing sniper meta.

[Noesis]

Varent, on 08 January 2014 - 07:13 AM, said:

You do know that most shooters out there dont promote duck and cover but instead promote run and gun tactics. Wich is what MWO would become if alot of people got there way and what many of us are fighting against because we DONT WANT IT TO BE ANOTHER SHOOTER. And want it to be something different.

Funny because the other day you were arguing a business model that appeals to players from FPS shooters.

Varent, on 06 January 2014 - 09:14 PM, said:

I agree, but there is a majority of online gamers that play shooter games wich they should be focusing on as a company to be successful.

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__3052856